Build your capability centre. Launch in 90 days.
Not an offshore vendor you buy hours from. A function you operate, staffed and run by us, working only on your roadmap. You keep the priorities, the architecture and the IP from day one.
- Four delivery centres in India running as one operating grid.
- Start with one pod on two weeks' notice, not a standing function.
- Transparent margin. You see what you are paying for.
Book a GCC discovery session.
Tell us what your team is trying to build and who owns the roadmap. We will tell you whether a capability centre is the right answer, including when it is not.
The work these teams could not afford to hand to a vendor.
An offshore centre rents you capacity. A capability centre builds capability that stays.
You decide what gets built. We run everything that makes it possible.
The split is deliberate and it is the whole model. Everything on the left stays yours permanently. Everything on the right is operational weight we carry so you do not have to open an entity to get engineers.
We stand the function up and keep running it. The roadmap, the priorities and the IP stay with you throughout, rather than transferring at the end of a plan. That is a deliberate structure, not a stage, and it is the difference worth checking against any other proposal you are reading.
Four delivery centres running as one grid.
Not four offices with four cultures. One operating model, one set of standards, and a bench deep enough that a resignation is a staffing event rather than a delivery event.
Chandigarh
The primary engineering base and the deepest bench, with the longest operating history.
Hyderabad
Data, platform and cloud engineering depth, in one of India's strongest talent markets.
Bangalore
Product and AI engineering, close to the density of senior specialist talent.
Kochi
Lower attrition and a strong quality engineering pool, useful for long-running platform work.
Start smaller than you want to.
Most enterprises that struggle with a capability centre did not choose the wrong model. They chose the right model at three times the size they were ready for.
Rate card pods
One squad on one roadmap. The smallest way to add real capacity without standing anything up.
- Named engineers, not a resource pool
- Your standards and your definition of done
- Scales into a centre if it works
Dedicated technology GCC
Several pods across product lines on a shared platform. Where most enterprises settle.
- Multi-team capability on one roadmap
- Governance and reporting lines defined up front
- Engineering, QA and platform in one function
GCC expansion
For enterprises with a centre already, adding capability rather than headcount.
- New disciplines into an existing centre
- A second location for continuity
- Operating model repair where it has drifted
Mobilise, absorb, run.
Transparent margin, because the alternative hides three of them.
Traditional outsourcing stacks a procurement margin, a facilities margin and an engineering margin, and shows you one blended rate. We show the parts.
Worth stating the obvious: if cost reduction is the only reason you want a capability centre, an offshore development centre is the cheaper answer and you should take it. The case for a GCC is retained capability, and only two of the seven real differences between the models are about cost. We set that out in full in GCC vs offshore development centre.
In their words.
We have got more done in the last 12 months than in the previous three or four years.
Chris GreenCEO, Hungry Jack's
Softobiz is a company that can take any vision of mine and make it into reality.
Softobiz not only leads but drives success in our tech-partner integration.
What leaders ask before they commit.
The commercial unit. An offshore centre bills you for hours against a scope, so the incentive is to supply hours. A capability centre is a function you operate: the people work only on your roadmap, inside your architecture, and the capability persists between projects. Both are legitimate, for different work.
No. We carry the entity, the employment obligations, the facilities and the compliance. What stays with you is the roadmap, the technical standards, the definition of done and the IP. That split is the model.
Yours by default and throughout. We stand the function up and keep running it, rather than handing it over at the end of a plan, so there is no transfer event to negotiate and no point at which ownership is ambiguous.
That is the real risk in any offshore model and it is why the method matters more than the headcount. The way work is done is documented and inspectable, so the capability sits in the team rather than in one long-serving engineer, and the bench across four centres means a resignation is a staffing event rather than a delivery one.
One pod, on about two weeks notice. That is deliberately the recommendation rather than the fallback: one squad on one roadmap teaches you what your operating model is actually missing, at a scale where finding out is cheap.
When the work has an end date. Bounded work with a defined finish is an offshore development centre every time, and standing up a function to deliver a project is expensive theatre. We would rather say that in the discovery session than eighteen months in.
Start with one pod, not a function.
Tell us what the centre would pick up first and who owns that roadmap in two years. If the honest answer is that the work has an end date, we will tell you not to build one.